When I started the Wiring the Brain blog a few years ago, it was with the
intention of writing mainly for students, scientists and clinicians in the
fields of genetics and neuroscience. Many of the posts deal with advances in
our scientific understanding of the causes of neurodevelopmental and
psychiatric disorders. Perhaps because of that, or just due to general interest
in the broader themes, the blog has also become widely read by non-specialists.

This presents some
exciting opportunities to write in a different way and to convey the excitement
of the field of neurogenetics to the general public, but also raises some
particular challenges. The biggest difference I have found is that the
assumption of a shared, global perspective is not always valid. When writing
for scientific colleagues there is an implicit expectation of a common starting
point – not just a background of specific knowledge about a subject, but a
foundation of wider shared beliefs that do not need to be articulated
explicitly.

In the context of the
themes of the Wiring the Brain blog, these include: that the diversity of life
arose through evolution by natural selection; that human genes and human brains
are not that different from animal genes and animal brains; that human minds
emerge from the activity of human brains and
nothing else; that variation in genes can affect behaviour; that studying
the components of a system is a good way to make progress in understanding the
whole; and most fundamentally, that the scientific method is the best way we
have of finding things out and not just one of many “ways of knowing”.

Being challenged on
some of those positions has been an eye-opener. It makes you look for the
evidence that supports them. For evolution, that is pretty much all the
observations ever made in the field of biology. In that circumstance, the job
becomes marshalling that evidence to convince someone who may not have heard it
all laid out before.

On another topic, this
prompted one of the few blogposts I have written that veered into philosophical
territory, entitled “On discovering you’re an android”. This presented the overwhelming evidence for
neuroscientific materialism, the position that the mind is what the brain
does, with no need to invoke any immaterial or supernatural stuff. This theory
is both counter-intuitive and highly discomfiting. After all, it doesn’t feel
like you are an android (though one made out of meat). One’s “self” feels pretty real and stable
and the idea that it emerges from and relies on the continued activity of the
neurons in your brain can leave one feeling existentially precarious. It is
human nature to recoil at this idea, but that’s what all the science says and
science wins.

Or does it? Not
everyone would accept that assertion. Many argue that science is just another
belief system with no special claim to validity. Part of the point, for me, of
writing the blog is to illustrate how science works, how we accumulate
evidence, how current paradigms can be challenged, modified or even overturned
by new data. That is, in fact, the polar opposite of a belief system. Also, it works!

A related claim, and a
common enough reaction to writings on the subject of human nature is that
scientists like myself are just reducing human existence to mindless
biochemistry, even down to physics. This charge of “Reductionism!”, which comes from psychologists as much as
from members of the general public, misses an important distinction between
methodological and theoretical reductionism. Yes, geneticists approach a
problem by looking for components of a system that can vary in a way that
affects the performance of the system. That is an experimental approach that
has proven hugely powerful, allowing one to identify important parts of a
system and ultimately analyse how they function together to mediate that
system’s functions. If the system is a human being, then that necessarily
entails understanding it in the context of its relations to other human beings.

Changes in single
genes can have large effects on behavioural traits in humans (for example, see
here on genetic influences on impulsivity). This does not mean that the behaviour in
question is mediated by a single gene. Nor does it mean that human behaviour is
determined by genes – it simply says that variation in that component of the
system can contribute to variation in patterns of behaviour over time. But no
matter how precisely that sentence is worded, it is important to realise, as a
writer, that it can still be misconstrued by people who are “reading between
the lines”, or extrapolated to infer a much broader claim consistent with a
reader’s preconceived notions of what scientists think.

That view may have
been informed by the shorthand that many scientists and journalists use about
“genes for this” and “genes for that”, which does indeed sound very
deterministic and reductionist. The absurd hype in many press releases, driven
by pressures for the next grant, adds greatly to this problem. (There’s no
shortage of that kind of thing in coverage of neuroscience either, now affectionately
known as “neurobollocks”). This kind of wording is sloppy,
sensationalist and deeply wrong at a conceptual level. Still, “Scientists
discover one of many factors that contributes to people’s behavioural
tendencies, which express themselves over time in the context of each
individual’s life experiences” does not make a good headline.

It is no wonder, then,
that readers often conclude that a larger claim is being made – exposure to
relentless hype in science coverage fully justifies that expectation. I
occasionally get comments starting, “So, what you’re really saying is…”, which
continue to say something I really wasn’t saying. Anticipating and pre-empting
these kinds of over-extrapolations can be an important part of this kind of
writing.

Another challenge,
especially in writing about the causes of clinical disorders such as autism or schizophrenia, is that these issues are necessarily fraught
for people suffering from these conditions or with children who are affected. Many
have strongly held views about the causes of their or their child’s particular
condition, sometimes unfortunately founded on misinformation. The scientific hoax linking autism with vaccines has been
incredibly hard to dislodge from the public’s consciousness. It is almost
impossible to combat moving personal anecdotes with dry statistical data
showing no association. The former are much more psychologically available – we are cognitively wired to learn from
specific instances of apparent correlations and very poorly adapted for
statistical thinking. The apparent “autism epidemic” reinforces the notion of some environmental
causes, though there is clear evidence that this reflects only an increase in awareness and diagnosis, not of the true underlying rates of the
condition. Showing how such data can be evaluated, scientifically, can go some way to equipping
people with the tools to distinguish solid claims from one-off observations and
correlation from causation.

My experience of
writing for scientists and non-scientists alike has been very enjoyable and
stimulating and I have learned a lot from it. I think it has made me a better
teacher and a more thoughtful researcher. I have been struck in particular by
both the tremendous interest in science among the general public and by how
poorly it is served by traditional media. Blogging provides an exciting
opportunity for scientists to help fill that void directly.

Comments

Great piece. Perhaps another way to address the apparently conflicting perspectives is to say: our brains evolved to extend beyond biological programming and wire themselves up in adaptive response to the environment they’re living, developing, and interacting in.

We know that DNA controls aspects of how humans progress from embryos to infants - children to adults. But everything else about who we become, everything not ordained by biological programming (and/or divine agency...soul, essence, or whatever you believe), we become through learning. Children adapt to the life-environments they grow up in (nutritionally, physically, emotionally, linguistically, socially, cognitively, academically). Children learn to become adults. The ‘you’ you were as a child learned to be the ‘you’ you are now. In profoundly underappreciated ways, for each and all of us, “I” am learned – “I” learned to be “me”.

Well, that's true - we don't really know how qualia emerge from brain activity. But all the evidence says that is what happens - if you mess with the physical structure of the brain you change the qualia. If you alter the electrical activity in the brain you change the qualia. If you monitor that activity, it correlates with the qualia. It just doesn't seem like you need anything else.

What about teleportation ? It is the well know question. What would happen if you teleport a person ? Would that new person would be still you or would be a totally new person ? Would YOU feel in that body or another person (of course with your own memories) would ? The processes in the brain would be the same, so it should be you there, if you regard the problem from this point of view. But still... you would be first destroyed before all your information could be moved to a new place.

Your blog about Brain Wiring is really awesome. I thoroughly read all the information provided by you in this post. I did not write this blog first but now I don't want to miss it. You described comprehensively about the brain. Thank you so much for your good work. traumatic brain injury

I finally got around to reading this and found it interesting as usual. I must say you are an excellent writer. Your pieces are thoughtful and articulated in an organized and precise manner. If there is ever a misunderstanding of your point ("So, what you're really saying is...), it is not because you don't articulate your ideas cogently. Thanks for helping to educate us autodidactics.

Everybody can earn 250$+ daily... You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job...It's easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish... It's a flexible job but a good earning opportunity.. go to this site home tab for more detail ..>>>>JOBS AT HOME

The Bible teaches that every child of God is a priest and there is but one high priest, Jesus Christ. become ordained online "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a dedicated nation, and a people claimed by God for his own.

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Can molecular memories of our ancestors’
experiences affect our own behaviour and physiology? That idea has certainly
grabbed hold of the public imagination, under the banner of the seemingly
ubiquitous buzzword “epigenetics”. Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is
the idea that a person’s experiences can somehow mark their genomes in ways
that are passed on to their children and grandchildren. Those marks on the
genome are then thought to influence gene expression and affect the behaviour
and physiology of people who inherit them. The way this notion is referred to – both in
popular pieces and in the scientific literature – you’d be forgiven for
thinking it is an established fact in humans, based on mountains of consistent,
compelling evidence. In fact, the opposite is true – it is based on the
flimsiest of evidence from a very small number of studies with very small
sample sizes and serious methodological flaws. [Note that there is, by contrast,
very good evidence for this kind…

I recently wrote a blogpost examining the
supposed evidence for transgenerational epigenetic inheritance (TGEI) in
humans. This focused specifically on a set of studies commonly cited as
convincingly demonstrating the phenomenon whereby the experiences of one
generation can have effects that are transmitted, through non-genetic means, to
their offspring, and, more importantly, even to their grandchildren. Having
examined what I considered to be the most prominent papers making these claims,
I concluded that they do not in fact provide any evidence supporting that idea,
as they are riddled with fatal methodological flaws. While the scope of that piece was limited
to studies in humans, I have also previously considered animal studies making
similar claims, which suffer from similar methodological flaws (here and here).
My overall conclusion is that there is effectively no evidence for TGEI in
humans (contrary to widespread belief) and very little in mammals more
generally (with one very…

GWAS (genome-wide association studies) for
psychiatric illnesses may be about to become a victim of their own success. The
idea behind these studies is that common genetic variation – ancient mutations
that segregate in the population – may partly underlie the high heritability of
common psychiatric and neurological disorders, such as schizophrenia, autism,
epilepsy, ADHD, depression, and so on. The accumulating evidence from over ten
years of GWAS strongly supports that idea, with many hundreds of such risk
variants now having been identified. The problem is it’s not at all clear what
to do with that information. GWAS are a method to carry out a kind of
genetic epidemiology, based on a simple premise – if a particular genetic
variant at some position in the genome (say an “A” base, as opposed to a “T” at position 236,456 on chromosome 9) – is associated with an increased risk
of some condition, then the frequency of the “A” version should be higher in
people with the condition than pe…